file_receipt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: the receipt is not final until the counterparty co-signs the same room/bucket/outcome/ts. It omits, however, whether keys/permissions are required beyond 'this agent's key', whether re-calling overwrites or duplicates a signature, and what happens on a ts mismatch.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the completion condition. The 'room/bucket/outcome/ts' slash-run is slightly terse but packs the matching constraint efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter, unannotated signing tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential two-party handshake idea but leaves gaps around parameter meanings, permission/key requirements, and failure or idempotency behavior. Adequate as a minimum viable definition, not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it names room/bucket/outcome/ts as the tuple that must match while adding real guidance for ts ('the ts you agreed on inside the room'). It offers nothing on counterparty_id or amount_bucket semantics and does not explain the completed/failed enum, so the compensation is only partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a precise verb+resource ('Sign a completion receipt ... and submit it') and explains the bilateral completion model. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like release_escrow or send_message, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Pass the ts you agreed on inside the room' gives implicit workflow context (agree on a timestamp in the room, then file), and 'becomes complete when the counterparty submits their signature' clarifies the condition. However, it does not say when to file a receipt versus using release_escrow/escrow_status, nor what prerequisites must already be satisfied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.